Notes on the Iran deal

The reaction to the Iran nuclear deal is instructive in its speed and the lack of context with which it has been received. On one side, the criticism has moved beyond the specifics of the deal itself to a broader critique of U.S.-Iranian relations (here is a typical conservative take), as though the United States was the only nation at the table. Supporters, for their part, are making claims that may not hold up once real scrutiny is applied to the details.

I’ll be honest. I am not prepared to say whether this deal is a good one — though I do start from the perspective offered today by Roger Cohen in The New York Times: The deal has to be considered against the alternatives — I.e., that a negotiated settlement is preferable to military action, that it is a starting point, and that the sanctions regime under which we currently operate was about to fray.

As Cohen writes:

The Iran nuclear deal is not perfect, nor was it ever intended to address the long list of American-Iranian grievances, which will persist. It must be judged on what it set out to do — stop Iran going nuclear — not on whether Iran has a likeable regime (it does not) or does bad things (it does).

If negotiations had collapsed, he writes (in a knock against critics of the deal), would mean

renewed war talk as an unconstrained Iran installs sophisticated centrifuges, its stockpile of enriched uranium grows, Russia and China abandon the sanctions regime, moderates in Iran like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are sidelined, and a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic draws closer. 

Ultimately, my issue with the critiques — at least from some quarters — is that they are not focused on the specifics of the deal itself, but instead on peripheral issues (there are exceptions, like this column from conservative Charles Krauthammer). These are issues that need to be tackled, to be sure, and can be as we move forward, though we will have to acknowledge as part of any future negotiations over Iran’s role in the Middle East, over its belligerence toward Israel, or its commitment to human rights that Iran is a sovereign nation and that our influence, ultimately, is limited.

The key issue, in this case, was the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the deal should be judged solely on whether it effectively shuts that program down. Again, I don’t know if this agreement will accomplish that. In a perfect world, what would happen next would be a fairly open and honest debate that results in an expanded understanding of how this deal will work, how it will affect nuclear proliferation and what legitimate alternatives might exist. It would subject all claims (including this one from the president) to in-depth analysis and critique, explain who the players are (both nationally and internationally) and what their allegiances mean for their claims.

The chances of that happening, however, are slim given that we are in the middle of a presidential race, that we have a national media apparatus more interested in conflict than in providing useful information (see Juan Cole’s analysis), and because there are too many interests out there who stand to benefit from creating controversy.

Send me an e-mail.

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet